Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Best overall player in the hobby? Why don't people lose points if they didn't write fluff about their army?

I've seen tournaments where fluff is scored. I would love it if more of them did, although I can see the reason it is not scored in most tournaments (simply the time it takes to read through the fluff, and the relative difficulty of objectively rather than subjectively marking it). And scoring is not about negatively marking for things that are not there, but scoring for things that are.

So, how is this different from painting? It's not like the judge is picking up every single one of my ork boyz and having a look at its details. He might as well just flip through the pages of fluff.

Why don't people lose points if they are not fielding converted or scratch-built models?

This is often covered under the painting score, either on the painting score ladder, or under a general "painting and modeling" score.

That's not the point. Converting and scratch-building is undoubtedly part of the hobby, so why isn't 25% of the score modeling? If you didn't convert or scratch-build anything those 25% are going to be 0, dooming you to not winning the tournament.

For not having a theme song? For not knowing the names of all primarchs? For knowing the names of all primarchs if playing the imperial guard? For not wearing a cosplay costume fitting your army?

Reductio ad absurdum strawman.

So people who care about the background, pick theme songs or cosplay are not enjoying a part of the hobby? Who are you to decide that? Why is painting so much more important than those?

A tournament is about playing games to win. Randomly adding an art contest into the score is just ridiculous, and leads to stupid stuff like dumping an entire blood angels army and replacing it with a better painted one from switzerland, just because you have no chance of placing first otherwise.

Say what? And you were suggesting I was using hyperbole

How is something that has happened in real life a hyperbole?

A tournament is about whatever you (well, the TO) want it to be about. I think all will have a best general prize, most will have a best painted, and many will have best sportsman. A great number will have a best overall, combining the scores from all judged categories. Again, I'm not exactly sure where you are failing to see that this is a reasonably fair way of doing things. Unless of course you feel that the person who won the most games should just get all the prizes, because they obviously are the best person there?

Misunderstanding an argument on purpose doesn't help. What I want, it that the guy who is the best player gets the best player reward. The guy who is the best painter gets the best painter reward. The guy with the awesome self-built scenic model gets a golden daemon. If someone wrote awesome fluff, give him something else, too. Just don't muddle entire independent disciplines.

The same hyperbole as in every discussion of this kind. The point is, that a kid which has no talent at painting whatsoever, but took weeks painting his entire marine army with his own paint scheme will get punished for doing so, just because he can't paint well and his rhinos look like McDonald's kids menu bags. On the other hand, the guy who bought a big can of army painter, white primer and dipped his entire tyranid army within one evening get's awarded for having decent looking minis.
Both examples are actual people that play at my store.

I don't know how painting judging is done where you are from, but most score lists I have seen for paint scoring are objective, and an army which has 3 colours, basing done, etc, will notch up ~70% of the painting score. You are never punished for painting your stuff. Painting can only improve your OVERALL score.

See, there's the problem. We have Mr.Ebay-from-Switzerland, we have the guy with dipped tyranids, we have someone who I think is the god of tyranid painting and my own army isn't too shabby either (all those are about 85% or higher). An army with three colors and will score 50% at most. Add terrible choice of colors, a bad paintjob and painting that the judge finds unfitting (like my Bloodaxe Thrakka) and you might end up at 40% or so. Meaning that he has at least a 10% handicap when trying to place first. Those 10% can turn a minor win into a loss or a massacre into a minor win.

And as has been mentioned, most tournaments run painting to be about 25% of your overall score, meaning that the difference between a 70% painting score and 100% is only a relatively tiny amount in the overall score. It is only really a factor if the guy who won all his games didn't paint his army (or has a tabletop quality army), and the guy who came second only lost once but has a well painted force and so pips the best general to best overall.

Actually, it's much more severe. With any combination of massacres, minor and major wins, and maybe even a minor loss, you might find yourself in first place with three or four people only a point or two behind you. Losing two or three points because the judge didn't like your paintjob can easily drop you three or four places down the ladder.

But to take on your line of reasoning, why should the kid who only just picked up his first model last week get "punished" for taking part in tournaments just because he is (understandably) not that good at playing the game?

Because you play games to figure out who is the best player. Just like you don't factor in the visual appeal of a person in sports or the design of a vehicle in motorsports. Just like Miss Universe doesn't have to win a car race to be called the most beautiful women. My line of reasoning works both ways. Don't mix stuff that shouldn't be mixed.

I'm totally on your side for downranking grey/black/paper armies. But a totally subjective score based on how a random person thinks models have to look like is even worse than randomly picking who wins the tournament.

Again, whilst there is a subjective element to scoring painting, I've never been to a tournament which judged painting which did not have an objective score sheet. Most will have 70-90% of the paint score based on "does it have highlights", "is the base done", "is there any freehand on the banners/armour/etc", with the remaining 30-10% based on a subjective "wow" factor, or "how well does the army gel in terms of painting coherency", etc.

"is the base done" is actually a good one. I like my bases being black, because it puts more focus on the model. Who made painting bases mandatory in the first place? No one ever picked up one of my models and told my they suck because they have a black base. Even if you have a checklist, that checklist is based on personal opinion.

So, why not give the best player a price and another price to the best painter? By looking at two the most recent tournaments here, the best painters usually go empty-handed because the got massacred by grey flavor-of-the-month marines and thus couldn't place first anymore. Can't really call that supporting painters, can you?

I'm not going to comment on the tournament scene where you are from, but as I have said repeatedly, most tournaments will have either 3 or 4 prizes. Best painted, best general, best sportsman, best overall. They can go to 4 separate people, or all go to the same player, or some combination between those two, depending obviously on how well people do in each of the 3 scored categories, thus supporting all aspects of the hobby, not just the ability to be lucky on the day, or buy the best army, or even buy the best paint jobs*, etc.

See, that's all I want. While "best overall" still is kind of stupid, at least the champs of each discipline didn't have to leave empty-handed. As it is, many tournaments(especially the smaller ones) just have the "best overall" price, and maybe something for second place.

*incidentally, this is a separate issue - some tournaments will have restrictions on who can in best painted, depending if it was painted by the person entering the army or not.

Which is, as already explained, easy to cheat at. Reading a few tutorials and maybe the citadel books gives you a pretty good idea about how to paint difficult stuff, without actually doing it.

If pushing around models an rolling dice would be all it takes, all those great painters should placing first anyways, right? /sarcasm

Well, tell me how to move my models with my mind, or perhaps bring them to life and fight by themselves and I will get right on playing the game that way

Oh, wait, you are not answering my question and are attempting to dodge the issue with [not veiled at all] sarcasm.

JIdmah - "That's not the point. Converting and scratch-building is undoubtedly part of the hobby, so why isn't 25% of the score modeling? If you didn't convert or scratch-build anything those 25% are going to be 0, dooming you to not winning the tournament. "

Because conversions, as opposed to a lack of painting, do notDIRECTLY impact my enjoyment in the game, nor does it directly impact how knackering the game is to play

Painting, or the lack of it, does.

Horst wrote:

Jubear wrote:I dont see why painting scores should matter at all.

I do believe that you should need a painted army to play but I do not see why paint scores should come into it.

I am a fan of a separate best painted prize and a separate best sportsmen prize (with good prize support)

Also it should be remembered that I can go out and buy a pro painted force but i cant go out and buy skill at the game.

Paint snobs should just stay home and paint and let everyone else have some fun if you dont like competitive play then going to a tournament is a really bad idea. Its like a pro sporting team having a beauty pagent at the end of a game to decide if anyone gets some extra points.

It has nothing to do with being a paint snob.

It has more to do with you not even trying to paint your army, and hiding behind an excuse like "I'm not good at painting".

Having a separate best painted award is all well and good, but the problem with that IMO is the same people will often win it, with little mix up. That in and of itself is fine, but it means people like me who try hard, but don't have any natural talent for painting are basically given nothing over someone who glued together a bunch of plastic, which I think is BS.

And yes, you can go out and buy skill at this game. Its called buying a new army. 99% of this game is based on what type of army list you bring to the field. if you just go out and research which one is doing the best right now, and plunk down a few hundred $$$ on it, you can win more games than someone who is playing an older army, guaranteed. This game doesn't take much "skill", and I think you need to acknowledge that. Its based on list building, and intial positioning. Most of the time the game comes down to knowing your opponents army as well as your own, what he can and cannot do, and countering that with something you can do. And in order to be able to counter him, you need to build your list to have elements in it that can do it. It all comes back to list building in the end. So if you just buy a power list straight up, you'll win a lot.

And would you WAAC nutjobs PLEASE stop referencing sports uniforms? Its a reductio ad absurdum attack that makes zero sense. Thank you.

So you dont think building a good list or knowing how to deploy to counter different armies/builds are skills? I run a 4th edition codex mate and I do fine with it....Yes money will always play its part no list is going to work without investing in the right stuff but the same could be said of painting I can just go buy a pro painted army that will look better then most peoples painting. Anyway this arguemnet was over the moment you started calling folks WAAC nutjobs and spewing latin.

nosferatu1001 wrote:JIdmah - "That's not the point. Converting and scratch-building is undoubtedly part of the hobby, so why isn't 25% of the score modeling? If you didn't convert or scratch-build anything those 25% are going to be 0, dooming you to not winning the tournament. "

Because conversions, as opposed to a lack of painting, do notDIRECTLY impact my enjoyment in the game, nor does it directly impact how knackering the game is to play

Painting, or the lack of it, does.

It does if you plan on fielding a Biker/MA Warboss, a Seer Council on Jetbikes, those new Necron Walkers or Tervigons. None of those are exactly rare choices for their corresponding armies.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Because it's a game, and not everyone is a great painter?

It's a "hobby game". It's not a pure game. If you want to play a real game, go play one with good, balanced rules. GW games have never been about the rules, they've always been about the models. In fact, it's pretty easy to demonstrate that the rules exist to push sales of models in one direction or another.

Not everyone is a great gamer. Hell, not every great gamer is a good die roller. Why should you win a tournament because you rolled more sixes than me?

We have painting scores, and sportsmanship scores, and in some cases, fluff scores, to remind people that this isn't about wins and losses, it's about the spectacle it creates and the interaction with your opponents. If you can't handle that, go play chess, or go, or Advanced Squad Leader.

I've always hated the paint snobs.

Way to make friends there. Someone with a different opinion must be a snob...

Jidmah wrote:
More like 20-25% of your painting score. In addition, painting is purely subjective, I have been marked down on painting because I didn't paint Ghazghkull Thrakka as himself, but as a Bloodaxe Warlord.

That's an issue with a judge, not a system.

If the painting score is 25% of your total score, that's like turning one loss of the day into a victory. Can't buy that off ebay for gaming.

What if I'm a crap list-builder, but I copy Goatboy's lists off of BoLS? How does that differ from being a crap painter but buying your models online? Does your tournament screen people's lists to make sure they weren't stolen from someone who posted online? Well, of course not. If you buy a beautiful army on eBay, and I get to enjoy playing against it, who painted it is really irrelevant, you have still improved my gaming experience.

On the other hand, unless people are bringing unpainted armies, most systems I've seen say that painting is 25%, but if you do the math, it's closer to 5-10%. This can be explained with the application of... math.

Let's say that painting is scored from 0-40, and battle points from 0-120. That means painting is 40/160, or 25%. But, the painting score sheet says if you meet the basic requirements, you get 10, and for doing just a little beyond the basic three colors, you get an extra 15. That's how many of the paint rubrics that I've seen work. In reality, most players present score at least 25 on their paint score. That means that the actual delta being applied is the fifteen points from 25-40, not the full range of 0-40, and that means that the real impact is actually only 15/135, or 11%. Those other 25 points are simply normalized out as everyone gets them.

Fezman wrote:I think it should be separate. If there are going to be prizes for painting and modelling they should be judged completely separately from scores related to the game itself.

And, at most tournaments I've attended, they are. There is a Best General award for the player who plays the best, and there is a Best Appearance award for the player whose army looks best. And sometimes a Best Sportsman award for that too.

Now, if you also have an award called 'overall' - doesn't it stand to reason that it accounts for all of these things? It sounds like you're arguing that there is no merit in awarding a prize for overall performance.

DeathReaper wrote:
Well that and a good paint job is subjective. one judge could judge the army as being 5/10 on paint while another could give it 8/10.

Most events I'm aware of use a checklist for scoring, one which is at least 90% objective. And, at the larger national events, the top armies are scored by all judges present and an average or consensus is reached. Having judged appearances for the Adepticon team tournament (where there are 360 armies to judge in about two hours for maybe four judges), trying to do this without a checklist is an impossible task.

Jubear wrote:I dont see why painting scores should matter at all.

Perhaps to remind everyone that miniature wargaming is more about the miniatures than the gaming. Seriously, have you read the rules critically? Have you done even some basic comparisons between prices and units between the various codexes? If you're a serious gamer and aren't into painting miniatures, there's absolutely no reason to be playing this game. It's horribly unbalanced. There are many many better games out there. And I say that as someone who attends the large tournaments and has finished a tournament 'season' in the top score list.

Really. If you want to test your tactical skills, try Chess. At least if you tell an average person that you're a chess grandmaster, they'll be impressed. If you tell someone you're first on rankingsHQ for warhammer, they'll look at you like you grew a third head.

Also it should be remembered that I can go out and buy a pro painted force but i cant go out and buy skill at the game.

No, but you can copy someone else's skill (list) for free. And lists are more important than skill in this game.

Paint snobs

There's that word again.

should just stay home and paint and let everyone else have some fun if you dont like competitive play then going to a tournament is a really bad idea. Its like a pro sporting team having a beauty pagent at the end of a game to decide if anyone gets some extra points.

What if you do like competitive play (or, at least, as close as you can get with the GW rules), but also like the spectacle of two nice looking armies facing each other on the table. Seriously, you say I should stay home? If you don't want to play with painted miniatures, maybe you should stay home and play a computer game.

Jidmah wrote:For not having a theme song? For not knowing the names of all primarchs? For knowing the names of all primarchs if playing the imperial guard? For not wearing a cosplay costume fitting your army?

You know, some large tournaments have a quiz section and a spirit section too. If you choose not to care about those things, that's fine. But why then attack someone who does? I don't dress up. I don't get mad that someone who does gets the award for best costume. And, I willingly cede them the extra tie-breaker point on the overall score.

Being a good player doesn't take any less work or talent than painting your models.

Ha ha ha ha ha. Seriously? Copy list off internet. Learn basics of target priority and estimating distances. Learn basics of probability. Hope dice work well. Yeah, takes a lot to be a good player. Don't delude yourself, this isn't that complex of a game. And, again, that's not me being all sour grapes about it, that's me as someone who has won plenty of tournaments and has a shelf of trophies in his basement.

I won Best General at the second tournament I ever attended. It took me years to win an appearance award. In terms of developing skill there is no comparison. It is far far easier to learn to play.

Redbeard just won the thread.

Everyone clear out, this is over.

This argument is pointless. The fact of the matter is, people are free to organize whatever kind of tournament they want, and have whatever categories they want, whether you or I agree with them or not.

For a lot of players the game is a combination of art and game, and they like it to be judged accordingly. As you can see from this discussion, numerous players are fans of that style of tournament. That is enough of a reason for it to exist. I agree there are problems with this style of tournament, as there is with anything. But people like it, and it is good for the stores hosting it. That is enough.

But you seem to be angry that such a tournament even exist. Do you not see the problem with this? People have the freedom to run whatever they enjoy.

If you don't like a certain type of tournament, don't attend. Personally I wont attend 'Ard Boyz. I have nothing against it existing though. People want to play without the need to paint and base their models, they enjoy that, so they can play that way.

Do you not have these types of tournaments in your area? I'm sorry then, but that is more of a personal issue. I don't have any game stores within a 40 mile radius, that isn't the hobbies problem. Do you not like how your local

In the end, the fact that people want to play in such tournaments , actually prefer them (as it seems most players do) is enough reason for them to exist. I'm sorry if you don't enjoy that type of tournament. That doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.

Redbeard wrote:Ha ha ha ha ha. Seriously? Copy list off internet. Learn basics of target priority and estimating distances. Learn basics of probability. Hope dice work well. Yeah, takes a lot to be a good player. Don't delude yourself, this isn't that complex of a game. And, again, that's not me being all sour grapes about it, that's me as someone who has won plenty of tournaments and has a shelf of trophies in his basement.

I won Best General at the second tournament I ever attended. It took me years to win an appearance award. In terms of developing skill there is no comparison. It is far far easier to learn to play.

This. All. The. Way,

Exhaltations Great One.

I would think for someone that consistently gets Best General, that Winning Best Overall would be a driving motivation to put more effort into the hobby side of things. Shouldn't you strive to try to improve?

I mean, if I was unhappy about just winning Best General consistently, that would certainly motivate me to work harder, and do better on the hobby side of things.

Other than that, Redbeard really summed things up very well, IMO.

I absolutely hate taking my painted armies and playing grey plastic. I don't mind if they are working on it, or if they are new to the hobby. But really your gonna drop $500+ and leave them as ugly grey plastic or white/black primer? I just think its sad to leave stuff in that state. I do believe that there should be a prize in larger tournaments for painting/generaliship/sportsmanship and then the largest prize for the combo of all 3. I think all 3 are important to making people enjoy their time.

At the end of the day, everyone can become a better player, while only some of us were blessed with the artistic skill and patience to create such beautiful armies as grace the covers of white dwarfs and the like. So, the tournament winner should be determined solely by games won to games lost, with a dash of sportsmanship (as long as the fellow wasn't a total boor) Painting should not factor in, however TO's may include painting prices as they see fit.

rickross wrote:At the end of the day, everyone can become a better player, while only some of us were blessed with the artistic skill and patience to create such beautiful armies as grace the covers of white dwarfs and the like. So, the tournament winner should be determined solely by games won to games lost, with a dash of sportsmanship (as long as the fellow wasn't a total boor) Painting should not factor in, however TO's may include painting prices as they see fit.

Thats patently untrue.

I am a horrible artist, I still score well at painting because I work at it.

If I can do it, anyone else can as well.

Horst wrote:

rickross wrote:At the end of the day, everyone can become a better player, while only some of us were blessed with the artistic skill and patience to create such beautiful armies as grace the covers of white dwarfs and the like. So, the tournament winner should be determined solely by games won to games lost, with a dash of sportsmanship (as long as the fellow wasn't a total boor) Painting should not factor in, however TO's may include painting prices as they see fit.

Thats patently untrue.

I am a horrible artist, I still score well at painting because I work at it.

If I can do it, anyone else can as well.

To be fair, you did pick the Aurora Chapter, which can be quite tricky even for an adept painter .

KplKeegan wrote:

Horst wrote:

rickross wrote:At the end of the day, everyone can become a better player, while only some of us were blessed with the artistic skill and patience to create such beautiful armies as grace the covers of white dwarfs and the like. So, the tournament winner should be determined solely by games won to games lost, with a dash of sportsmanship (as long as the fellow wasn't a total boor) Painting should not factor in, however TO's may include painting prices as they see fit.

Thats patently untrue.

I am a horrible artist, I still score well at painting because I work at it.

If I can do it, anyone else can as well.

To be fair, you did pick the Aurora Chapter, which can be quite tricky even for an adept painter .

thats part of my point. I picked a chapter with a color scheme I liked, that wasn't overly difficult looking to paint, and got good results from it. You don't have to pick the most complex thing in the world if your not confident. I've said it before, I'm a terrible artist.

rickross wrote:At the end of the day, everyone can become a better player, while only some of us were blessed with the artistic skill and patience to create such beautiful armies as grace the covers of white dwarfs and the like. So, the tournament winner should be determined solely by games won to games lost, with a dash of sportsmanship (as long as the fellow wasn't a total boor) Painting should not factor in, however TO's may include painting prices as they see fit.

A) this is untrue. People are naturally skilled or not at both, people can improve at both. Getting better at painting is no different than getting better at playing. I was a crap artist for the first 20 years of my life. I decided to work on it. I daresay I'm pretty darn good these days.
b) if you don't excel overall, don't care about overall, why mind that overall exists
c) if you don't like those types of tournaments, don't play in them. Tournaments are not government institutions, or thrust onto you. They are hosted by individuals who have to right to make the judged categories be whatever they they find merit and enjoyment in. Neither you nor I nor anyone else has a right to say what kind of competition 'should' exist.

rickross wrote:At the end of the day, everyone can become a better player, while only some of us were blessed with the artistic skill and patience to create such beautiful armies as grace the covers of white dwarfs and the like.

Here are three miniatures I painted.



Clearly, I wasn't born with artistic talent, or even a steady hand. (As evidenced by the first picture). But, like anything else, if you work at it, you'll get better. You'll learn the tricks to keep your hands steady. You'll learn how to work with washes, when to drybrush, and you'll spend the time required to drill out gun barrels and file off mold lines.

Jidmah - whoosh

Your argument is that if you include painting scores you should also include conversion and fluff scores, as they are all equally important.

I showed that they are not, so you respond by referring to units you cannot include without conversins...which is not an argument for requiring conversions. You do realise that, right?

The guy who played the best gets best general. The person who was the best person to play against gets best sports. The person who painted the nicest models / made the best army, whcih includes conversions, gets best army

They person who was the best at ALL of them is Best Overall.

There - you have won the one you consider important (best general) and not won the one you dont.

Your argument is that there shouldnt be a best overall - which is a poor, poor argument for ALL the reasons shown

Moving thread to Tournament Discussions.

With all the companies out there paint your figures it should NEVER matter in a tournament.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Your argument is that there shouldnt be a best overall - which is a poor, poor argument for ALL the reasons shown

Which is exactly the opposite of what I said. But well, Redbeard already chose to pick up random stuff from my posts an reply to nothing else, so it might be a good time to abandon this thread after all.

thevirus wrote:With all the companies out there paint your figures it should NEVER matter in a tournament.

If you paid someone to paint your mini's they are still painted. I could care less if someone painted their army or paid someone else to paint their mini's. I personally only paint my 40k models. I get a 3rd party to paint most of my fantasy stuff. I like to paint the big gribblies in fantasy but can't be bothered to paint 180 night goblins. I think there should be a point cap on the painting score if you did not paint all of your army yourself, but I still would rather play with someone who paid to have their army painted then play unpainted grey sea.

I'd say best General and Best overall hobbyist should be equal in terms of prestige.

Your score for General should be 100% Battle results...

Your score for overall should be 1/3 painting, 1/3 battle results, and 1/3 Sports/other criteria

Cruentas: Yeah, the models are supplied unpainted. They're also sold unassembled, so if I just glue the parts in a pile to the base, thats cool?

Only if your theme is an Army AFTER they have all been Deff-Rolla'd.
And we would still expect GS gore and paint on the piled up bits.
LOL

But yeah, always 3 seperate categories and a 4th 'best overall' if the event can support that prize level..

dkellyj wrote:Cruentas: Yeah, the models are supplied unpainted. They're also sold unassembled, so if I just glue the parts in a pile to the base, thats cool?

Only if your theme is an Army AFTER they have all been Deff-Rolla'd.
And we would still expect GS gore and paint on the piled up bits.
LOL

But yeah, always 3 seperate categories and a 4th 'best overall' if the event can support that prize level..

nope. best overall, other 3 categories if they can be supported, and even then, best overall places 1-4 would be better.

n0t_u wrote:

Xeriapt wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

Lord Rogukiel wrote:Unless it's a painting tournament, by which I mean a tournament, but the best painted wins, like no games and stuff. Does that exist?

The various Golden Daemon events?

You could just say any painting comp really lol.

I've heard of stuff like it though, you show up with your model(s) and are given a time limit. Best painted wins.

Yeah Iv been in a speed painting comp, was fun, had about 40min to paint a nob.

Redbeard wrote:Clearly, I wasn't born with artistic talent, or even a steady hand. (As evidenced by the first picture). But, like anything else, if you work at it, you'll get better. You'll learn the tricks to keep your hands steady. You'll learn how to work with washes, when to drybrush, and you'll spend the time required to drill out gun barrels and file off mold lines.

Seconded! This applies to me as well. Although I'm still a couple years behind RB, because I still don't drill my barrels or file all my ML.

How important should painting score be?

Not at all. Painting scores should be for a separate award from gaming/generalship.

If you want painted armies, by all means have the TO require models to be painted to play in the tournament. Then, you can award the best painted.

But keep that separate from Best General.

kronk wrote:But keep that separate from Best General.

I don't think anyone, anywhere in this thread has suggested that painting should be a part of best general (ie, best win/KP/VP/etc record in the tournament).

kronk wrote:If you want painted armies, by all means have the TO require models to be painted to play in the tournament. Then, you can award the best painted.

But keep that separate from Best General.

The issue, as I understand it, is Best Overall, which is usually the big prize. You can win every game, but lose to the guy you beat in the final because his army was better painted.

IMO, this is perfectly fine. You'll likely win best general, which is what you should get for being the best general. If that person edges you out on Best Overall due to having a better painted army, suck it up, find why he beat you, and get better at painting.

God I miss the early to mid 90s when tournaments were just based of player skill then some asshat at GW came up with the horrible idea that tournaments should be a full hobby experience and next thing you know TOs are ruining tournaments with painting scores.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

-Loki- wrote:

kronk wrote:If you want painted armies, by all means have the TO require models to be painted to play in the tournament. Then, you can award the best painted.

But keep that separate from Best General.

The issue, as I understand it, is Best Overall, which is usually the big prize. You can win every game, but lose to the guy you beat in the final because his army was better painted.

IMO, this is perfectly fine. You'll likely win best general, which is what you should get for being the best general. If that person edges you out on Best Overall due to having a better painted army, suck it up, find why he beat you, and get better at painting.

Or just buy a pro painted army with the current price of GW is oz it work at at nearly the same as GW retail to buy your stuff from a discount store in india and have painted up by cheap skilled Indian labor. There problem solved if it gives me a better chance of winning best overall.